Jump to content

Why does GiB play this sequence as GF?


Jinksy

Recommended Posts

[hv=pc=n&s=sajh843dkt9753ca4&n=sqt874hkt5d2ckq86&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp1sp2dp2h(Described%20as%20'forcing%20to%203N')p3dp3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I thought this was basically universally played as F1 (apart from a handful of dinosaurs who still play NF) - GF seems almost unplayable. Judging by this hand even the robot seems confused - do they really think this is a full GF rather than, say a 2N rebid? (which already seems optimistic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred once said that this sequence should be GF - the reasoning is similar to why FSF should be GF.

 

Does this imply that what GiB plays is what Fred preferred it to play, at the time?

That would be no surprise or scandal, just curious to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this imply that what GiB plays is what Fred preferred it to play, at the time?

That would be no surprise or scandal, just curious to know.

 

I would assume that this is the way GIB was programmed when BBO bought it. From what I have read in these forums, GIB was not designed to make quick, simple (bidding or play) changes, not that changing 2 to game forcing from whatever meaning it might have had is necessarily easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this imply that what GiB plays is what Fred preferred it to play, at the time?

That would be no surprise or scandal, just curious to know.

No it doesn't imply that, GIBerish is probably not Fred's favourite system anyway. It's possible that GIB always played that way. I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that this is the way GIB was programmed when BBO bought it. From what I have read in these forums, GIB was not designed to make quick, simple (bidding or play) changes, not that changing 2 to game forcing from whatever meaning it might have had is necessarily easy.

I remember reading that the original program by Ginsberg was significantly configurable, and it seems rather unlikely to me that the current set of agreements was the default. Presumably somebody configured (or hacked) it to play this way, my curiosity is just who and whether it was already playing this way when BBO acquired it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...